jjjou, I know you think you're trying to be smart by attempting to twist Rapini's words into a blanket statement that might include a few fringe examples and because you're okay with the fringe examples, it somehow discredits his point? I don't know.

To me, it's more telling that your stance allows physical attempts at harm to others as long as there are no long lasting effects. I can play your game too. So you think it's okay if I try to stab someone with the intent to kill but somehow miss? You think I should go unpunished for that?

If i tried to stab you with intent to kill using a stick of butter and it got all over your chest at your heart, are you advocating i be tried for murder?

The guy grabbed OP by the throat. What are you even talking about? Maybe one of the facts we weren't told is that the assailant had gloves on with 4 inch thick padding on them. If that's the case, then I guess maybe this line you've now taken has merit?

The guy grabbed OP by the throat. What are you even talking about? Maybe one of the facts we weren't told is that the assailant had gloves on with 4 inch thick padding on them. If that's the case, then I guess maybe this line you've now taken has merit?

I think you should note carefully where OP's injuries occurred and how many hands his assailant used.

Losing a job. Many places of employment run yearly background checks and if you've been arrested for a drug charge or "violent" charge, you lose your employment. The spiral begins from there.

That seems reasonable to me as long as you've been warned in advance in your employment agreement or you're in an at-will employment situation.

I'm not an employment attorney, but an employment contract I reviewed a few weeks ago had a section stating that any arrest or conviction for any non-traffic crime is grounds for termination. It seems like those clauses would be pretty standard for a lot of jobs.

Why do you think that's unfair or unreasonable? I would think that it'd be a good deterrent to criminal behavior.

That's not a counterexample. No matter how much you wish it were true, words are not legal justification for violence.

I don't know how else to explain it. A simple Google search will show you're wrong.

To be clear, since people have a habit of grunching outside strategy threads , I don't think "fighting words" applies in this situation. It's simply a counterexample - as requested - to the notion that there exists a bright line between verbal and physical. There exists no such bright line.

There is, by definition, no physical contact made when uttering "fighting words". So the line set by Rapini — that mere words are not a legal justification for violence — is still very bright and intact.

(Also, for anyone who might become more confused after taking your suggestion to do a simple google search, the term "fighting words", as it is commonly used in law, describes a free speech protection, not a justification for physical violence.)

1. You escalated which is generally not a wise thing to do. "F U" are "fighting words" by legal definition.

2. But that's not to say that fighting words justify an assault. They do not. Also, legally speaking this was assault and battery, not just assault.

3. We can't tell you whether to press charges or not. It's your decision. I would.

4. You should've physically defended yourself once attacked. There was a non-zero chance of being choked out and it's prudent to make efforts to prevent that. You would still be legally covered under self-defense despite uttering fighting words.

I personally would press charges because eff that guy. Whether or not it actually gets to court I don't know and don't care, but I'd like to make sure he at least gets interviewed by the cops.

This is how it works in a civilised society, someone attacks you in a situation where you don't want to retaliate, you are trading the option to fight them for them to face the legal consequences of assaulting you.

That's my take on it though, you do you OP.

EDIT

Also yeah it's easy to criticise OP for dropping the f-bomb on this guy, but I'm sure we've all snapped back at one time or another when people are rude and aggressive. Getting into a verbal fight is unwise but understandable as long as it's not something you make a habit of doing. Assaulting someone in a casino because your feelings are hurt is not OK and not something normal people do. This guy crossed a line and should face the consequences.

No, that's not how it works in a civilized society. You have a right to self-defense. And if you defend yourself you do not lose your rights to legal recourse against the attacker. It's not either or.

So does physical violence or a physical altercation ever justifiably occur in your world or is it simply all criminal conduct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapini

Not in response to words. Maybe you can provide a counterexample though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by callipygian

"Fighting words."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapini

That's not a counterexample. No matter how much you wish it were true, words are not legal justification for violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by callipygian

I don't know how else to explain it. A simple Google search will show you're wrong.

To be clear, since people have a habit of grunching outside strategy threads , I don't think "fighting words" applies in this situation. It's simply a counterexample - as requested - to the notion that there exists a bright line between verbal and physical. There exists no such bright line.

callipygian, you're simply wrong about "fighting words" justifying physical violence. My guess is you don't know how to explain whatever it is you're trying to explain because you're wrong. There does exist a bright line that words alone never legally justify physical violence. You can google that if you want instead of directing me to google an unrelated constitutional law concept when we're discussing criminal law.

That seems reasonable to me as long as you've been warned in advance in your employment agreement or you're in an at-will employment situation.

I'm not an employment attorney, but an employment contract I reviewed a few weeks ago had a section stating that any arrest or conviction for any non-traffic crime is grounds for termination. It seems like those clauses would be pretty standard for a lot of jobs.

Why do you think that's unfair or unreasonable? I would think that it'd be a good deterrent to criminal behavior.

FYI, I would have pressed charges as well, but I think your argument that you should do so since. You need to create a record/he will get a slap on the wrist is a short sided one. Almost all jobs are at will employment. If this guy loses his job because of his arrest, then he can’t feed his family etc etc and the downward spiral goes from there. You may think he deserves that and maybe he does, but arrests have a lot more collateral consequences that many people think of. Even in today’s day and age, many of my clients have lost jobs over relatively minor marijuana arrests that were later dismissed in court.

callipygian, you're simply wrong about "fighting words" justifying physical violence. My guess is you don't know how to explain whatever it is you're trying to explain because you're wrong. There does exist a bright line that words alone never legally justify physical violence. You can google that if you want instead of directing me to google an unrelated constitutional law concept when we're discussing criminal law.

You're really going to make me Google this for you?

You live in Pennsylvania, or at least play there, right? You know what, even if you don't, I suppose you'll have to take my good word that I didn't cherry pick Pennsylvania for its unusual laws.

1. Verbally instigating a fight falls under PA disorderly conduct laws, which can be treated as high as a class 3 misdemeanor.

ETA: I didn't check to see whether Pennsylvania has "stand your ground" type laws, but that's another avenue in which these issues tend to come up. Typically, the verbal threat has to be accompanied by some kind of show of force, e.g., someone threatens to cut you while holding a knife. But the end result is the same - the aggressor of physical violence is not liable for initiating contact, the verbal threat is taken on par with a physical action.